Weeks after first revealing the Xbox One to the world and days before its follow-up events at E3 next week, Microsoft has finally broken its silence on a number of important and, until now, confusing Xbox One issues. Today, the company published a post spanning topics from used games and disc lending to online connections and Kinect-based privacy concerns.

First off—the big questions about used games and game licensing. "Today, some gamers choose to sell their old disc-based games back for cash and credit," Microsoft wrote. "We designed Xbox One so game publishers can enable you to trade in your games at participating retailers. Microsoft does not charge a platform fee to retailers, publishers, or consumers for enabling transfer of these games."

Microsoft didn't go into detail on exactly how this resale process would work, but we can glean a bit from the language they did use. For instance, the "games publishers can enable you" bit heavily implies that those publishers can also decide not to allow for used discs to be resold at all. In fact, later in the announcement, they confirm that "third-party publishers may opt in or out of supporting game resale and may set up business terms or transfer fees with retailers."

The "participating retailers" phrasing implies that not just any store will be able to accept your trades. Rather, the retailer will probably have to sign on to some sort of online system to confirm that the game is no longer associated with your Xbox Live account (more on that account linkage is described below). Microsoft for its part "does not receive any compensation as part of this [used game sales process]" and "does not charge a platform fee to retailers, publishers, or consumers for enabling transfer of these games."

What if you don't want to go through a retailer to sell your disc or give it to a friend? Microsoft has you covered there to some extent. The company writes that "Xbox One is designed so game publishers can enable you to give your disc-based games to your friends. There are no fees charged as part of these transfers. There are two requirements: you can only give them to people who have been on your friends list for at least 30 days and each game can only be given once."

Again, publishers can block the ability to give away games if they choose. The limit on giving each game disc only once also severely limits how freely discs can be passed around among Xbox One owners. Many games on trading services get passed around multiple times before reaching their final owners.

The Xbox One licensing system means an end to game rentals as we know them, at least at launch. "Loaning or renting games won’t be available at launch, but we are exploring the possibilities with our partners," Microsoft announced bluntly.

All games for Xbox One will be available the same day on discs or as downloads. Even if you buy the disc, though, the game will be playable without it after being installed on any Xbox One system. That is, as long as you log in to the associated Xbox Live account. You'll be able to download the digital version of the game to any system too, even if you originally bought it on disc.

That should handle the problem of bringing games over to a friend's house (though loaning a disc to a friend long-term could be a different matter). Family members won't have to log in as you in order to play games on your own personal system, though; those games will be playable by anyone using that primary system. You can "share" access to your games with up to 10 family members, giving them the added ability to bring those games over to a friend's house for instance.

All of this, of course, is not set in stone. "As we move into this new generation of games and entertainment, from time to time, Microsoft may change its policies, terms, products and services to reflect modifications and improvements to our services, feedback from customers and our business partners, or changes in our business priorities and business models or for other reasons," the company writes. "We may also cease to offer certain services or products for similar reasons."

Always Online? Always watching?

Apparently, Microsoft doesn't see the Xbox One as a system intended for people who don't have broadband in the home at all. "Because every Xbox One owner has a broadband connection, developers can create massive, persistent worlds that evolve even when you’re not playing," the company writes. Microsoft recommends a connection of at least 1.5Mbps, or using mobile broadband "in areas where an Ethernet connection is not available."

While the broadband connection doesn't have to be "persistent" to use the Xbox One, Microsoft says the console is "designed to verify if system, application, or game updates are needed and to see if you have acquired new games, or resold, traded in, or given your game to a friend." Your primary console can be offline for up to 24 hours without this online check-in, while a secondary console (i.e. one accessing your library/account at a friend's house) can only be offline for an hour at a time.

While gaming is not possible if these online check-in times are not met, you'll still be able to watch TV or DVD movies without a connection. In addition, "games that are designed to take advantage of the cloud may require a connection."

In response to privacy concerns raised by the "always on" description of the Xbox One and its attached Kinect, Microsoft has clarified that "you are in control of when Kinect sensing is On, Off or Paused." When the system is "off," the Kinect will only listen for a single phrase—"Xbox On"— and even that feature can be turned off.

Microsoft stresses that the Xbox One will "navigate you through key privacy options, like automatic or manual sign in, privacy settings, and clear notifications about how data is used" when it is first set up. The Kinect will not record or upload "simply having a conversation," Microsoft says, and it will not send data "such as videos, photos, facial expressions, heart rate, and more... without your explicit permission." In addition, navigation for the Xbox One UI can be controlled with a regular controller as well as voice and gesture commands.

There's a lot of information in this afternoon data dump from Microsoft, and we're still sifting through and processing it all. Expect more analysis and opinion about the system's unique features soon.

Internet connection required to play single player game? Epic Fail. I have never purchased (or pirated) a game with this requirement. And never will. Baked into the system itself? Well Microsoft ensured I will remain a PC gamer for a long time.

Out of curiosity (legitimately), if you have a current console system - do you always leave it connected / online? Basically from a practicality standpoint will it make any difference? I'm certainly not deriding your decision to pass based on principal, totally cool. I just know for me that my system is just always connected by default and I don't really even think about it. I'm wondering if this is similar with 98% of people or if many actually have systems not connected frequently.

This seems like a compromise, Gamestop isn't screwed over (not entirely) but publishers can manage their used titles however they want, so there'll be a several week blackout on used copies, with that amount of time growing or shrinking based on the percentage the developer gets out of each used sale (I can imagine Gamestop exclusives on used copies happening).

The "business terms" could even be an agency model, ala Apple and Amazon. They set the prices so they don't hurt their new sales so much.

All in all, a working compromise, one that completely ignores one very important party - the gamers. This does nothing for us and there's going to have to be pretty good side benefits given to help sell it. The family sharing doesn't really do it for me (my family is in Australia, I'm in Canada, what's the bet it doesn't cross borders?), the diskless system should have existed anyway (it makes sense, easier to deal with lost disks and faster load times), I can really see why Microsoft wasn't forward with this stuff.

Steam on the PC and the XBO are different scenarios. Let's go over why:

Buying in. People owned PCs before Steam existed and don't pay Valve a penny to buy one. XBO requires you fork over $400 (or whatever the price is), the majority of which goes to MS.

Competition. Don't like Steam or how it works? Buy game from anywhere else. Don't like how MS runs their system? $400 paperweight. Competition has several secondary effects, like discounting, keeping business honest, etc. Steam has those; MS won't.

Sales. AAA, multi-million seller, Game-of-the-Year winners go on sale regularly. We know how Steam works with its pricing. Microsoft? Don't yet know. We have seen when the same game is sold digitally and brick-and-mortar that the digital version does not get comparable sales.

Trust. We trust Steam because we've seen how it works. MS has not earned our trust. And being our only XBO option, it's an easy position to abuse.

Offline usability. Your PC works perfectly fine without an internet connection. Steam will still play your installed games. XBO goes dead in 24 hours (if it won't play games, it's dead to me).

Value-added or taken away. Steam's introduction and existence does nothing to take away from our computer gaming experience. Some of us even like its features; the rest can ignore it. XBO and its online DRM are a major step backwards from the 360 in every ownership aspect.

So while they are both digital distribution platforms, Steam and XBO are very different beasts.

Things I'm looking forward to Steam doing, since PC gaming will save us all:* Allowing my family access to my game catalogue for free.* Allowing me to give a game I bought to a friend when I'm done with it.* Allowing me to re-sell games I don't want anymore.* Guaranteeing their DRM servers will be up forevermore so I'll never lose anything.* Allowing me to rent games.

Like, okay, the landscape is changing. I get it and I see why it's unpleasant. On the other hand people seem to LOVE Steam despite all of the above points being things that will literally never happen.

One question I have that still hasn't been addressed (so far as I've seen) is whether or not games will remain playable *if you get banned* from Xbox's service. It's sounding more and more like they're moving toward practically a digital distribution model, where the physical discs aren't even necessary beyond quicker installs. So kind of like Steam.

With Steam, you are merely buying a license to play a game. Per their subscriber agreement: "The Software is licensed, not sold. Your license confers no title or ownership in the Software. To make use of the Software, you must have a Steam Account and you may be required to be running the Steam client and maintaining a connection to the Internet."

That means if you get banned from Steam, you lose access to all your "licensed content." The primary advantage to consoles has been the ability to *own* the games you buy. So Microsoft bans you, you still have the disc. But when the software on that disc is tied explicitly to your account, what happens if you get banned?

Share this story

Kyle Orland
Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in the Washington, DC area. Emailkyle.orland@arstechnica.com//Twitter@KyleOrl

I guess I will be picking up a WiiU this gen and sticking with my PC. Looks like we will not get the option to rent games. This is a big deal for me as I'm not going to drop 60 bucks or more on a games that I cant try before I buy. At least on the PC I can pick up games cheap when Steam has a sale.and if they suck well I have only lost a few dollars.

Guess I'll be skipping the Xbox One. These policies are disgustingly anti-consumer. If the PS4 is doing anything similar, I'll be skipping that as well.

At this point, I may simply skip every next gen console altogether (maybe a Wii U), and stick with my PC, PS3, and 360. If these companies desire was to turn me off to their products - they've done an outstanding job.

Microsoft does not charge a platform fee to retailers, publishers, or consumers for enabling transfer of these games.

So... can the publishers charge a fee to enable the transfer of those games? I can see a game studio trying to garner good will by allowing transfers, yet then sticking people with a transfer fee, claiming it's for overhead costs.

Translation: "We're excited at the prospect of finding new ways we can gouge our customers. For far too long they've had unacceptable rights of ownership, and its about time we did something about it."

Microsoft does not charge a platform fee to retailers, publishers, or consumers for enabling transfer of these games.

So... can the publishers charge a fee to enable the transfer of those games? I can see a game studio trying to garner good will by allowing transfers, yet then sticking people with a transfer fee, claiming it's for overhead costs.

Also, I wonder what the mood is over at places like GameFly.

I'm thinking places like GameFly are sweating bullets right about now. MS said that its giving the Publishers the option to lock there games from being resold. I'm guessing the Sony will be doing the same.

You really think that the Publisher is going to be concerned for a company like GameFly or the Consumer? No its all about lining there pockets with more cash but what they fail to realize is that the 2nd hand and rental market has a huge effect on driving new game sales.

Internet connection required to play single player game? Epic Fail. I have never purchased (or pirated) a game with this requirement. And never will. Baked into the system itself? Well Microsoft ensured I will remain a PC gamer for a long time.

As for terrible news that won't be said by them, say hello to neogaf. The information is from some of their best insiders and basically says that the presentation was faked, they're in over their heads, and need to downclock the gpu because it has issues with the eSRAM. For more information:http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=576869

This article missed a ton of the benefits of this system. Being able to play my games on *any* Xbox even at a friend's house without a disc, having guests and family able to play my games on my Xbox, and being able to share my games with up to 10 family members at once are all huge value adds.

That probably because the negatives so ridiculously outweighs the positives.

This article missed a ton of the benefits of this system. Being able to play my games on *any* Xbox even at a friend's house without a disc, having guests and family able to play my games on my Xbox, and being able to share my games with up to 10 family members at once are all huge value adds.

I think the problem is that EA, Microsoft, etc have NOT earned our trust with reasonable practices, and regular major sales events like Steam. Plus, what about people who live overseas for a time? If it's a US sold game, how long before it won't work if you live elsewhere just like the stupid DVD Region codes? And while it might not be a significant number, how about those living in remote areas with limited to no regular internet access to plug this in? I'm thinking of US military right now, such as Navy ships out on cruise, or Guam, or the young troops living in the dorms/barracks on deployment, or even some bases, which may have limited or no internet access there. For any email/Facebook/etc they have to go to a Morale & Welfare location which will have a couple of computers, and very limited internet.

Clearly, Microsoft wants the Xbone to be more like a SteamBox than a traditional console.

All the backlash is people telling Microsoft they don't want a SteamBox but a traditional console with the benefits that comes with:* Sharing games with friends* Buying and selling of used games* Playing offline

Steam is great, but it's like Microsoft is taking the bad of Steam without keeping the good:* Plentiful and steep sales* The ability for third parties to sell Steam Keys (e.g., indie devs)* Offline play

Microsoft needs to get rid of licenses on the Xbone and keep it a console. The customer's wants should trump the publisher's wants.

Clearly, Microsoft wants the Xbone to be more like a SteamBox than a traditional console.

All the backlash is people telling Microsoft they don't want a SteamBox but a traditional console with the benefits that comes with:* Sharing games with friends* Buying and selling of used games* Playing offline

Steam is great, but it's like Microsoft is taking the bad of Steam without keeping the good:* Plentiful and steep sales* The ability for third parties to sell Steam Keys (e.g., indie devs)* Offline play

Microsoft needs to get rid of licenses on the Xbone and keep it a console. The customer's wants should trump the publisher's wants.

Except their customers are the publishers. Not the people buying the hardware.

what they fail to realize is that the 2nd hand and rental market has a huge effect on driving new game sales.

I swear I don't mean this to be a stupid question, even though it probably is, but how so? I've never really understood why used game sales, which seems to be a completely dying business given Gamestop's perpetual financial woes, and the lack of any other major similar chains (that I'm aware of).

I may just be blind to it, though. I hate used/rental physical media, and don't lend out my stuff, ever, to anyone. Microsoft could've announced that attempting to play a used game would send a million volts through the XBone controller and I would happily buy one without fear of the lightning bolt.

If it's just the philosophical distinction—don't tell me what to do with my stuff—that I can understand, but it seems people have more of a practical nit to pick with limiting used game sales. I had no idea it was such a big thing, I guess.

Scenario: The zombie apocalypse finally comes. I'm secure in my home with a generator, supply of beef jerky, and beer. I plug in my Xbox One, and cannot play....

I plug in my 360 or PS3, and game on.

Xbox One: Not Apocalypse Friendly.

This is a deal breaker for me as well. Halo was the only reason why I choose an xbox over a ps3, and I was extremely disappointed in Halo 4. I really see little reason to buy the new one, especially when it looks like Destiny will be a PS4 launch exclusive. (screw you 343 Guilty Spark).

This article missed a ton of the benefits of this system. Being able to play my games on *any* Xbox even at a friend's house without a disc, having guests and family able to play my games on my Xbox, and being able to share my games with up to 10 family members at once are all huge value adds.

That probably because the negatives so ridiculously outweighs the positives.

That and you can only share any game with one other person at a time; it's just that 10 people can see the entire library, only two copies of any single game can be active, and one of those copies is the one you're playing with.

So really for the majority of the library only one game is active; your circle of 10 means each player can only play one, unique, game, and you, the owner, can also play one of those games.

iOS and the DS does it better where 4 people can all play the same game simultaneously on 4 different iOS devices.

Internet connection required to play single player game? Epic Fail. I have never purchased (or pirated) a game with this requirement. And never will. Baked into the system itself? Well Microsoft ensured I will remain a PC gamer for a long time.

Out of curiosity (legitimately), if you have a current console system - do you always leave it connected / online? Basically from a practicality standpoint will it make any difference? I'm certainly not deriding your decision to pass based on principal, totally cool. I just know for me that my system is just always connected by default and I don't really even think about it. I'm wondering if this is similar with 98% of people or if many actually have systems not connected frequently.

Honestly, given the rate at which I finish games these days this is probably a good thing. I can just clear my PS3/360/PC backlog without adding anything new and pretend consoles went extinct after this gen.

I guess having an Xbox in your boat, on camping or in a remote place in the wild nature is out of the question then.

Exactly those remote places far away from civilization where you would actually enjoy playing a game, this includes the military of course or just anyone going to their vacation house.

But hell, I don't care since i'm getting a PS4 like most people. Im very satisfied with my PS3 as well, so if the PS4 is an improvement in games and graphics, why not...

Also its a proven fact, that people that sell their games, just use the money again to buy new other games. Used games have increased amazingly how many games someone owns and tries, how can more eyeballs be possible bad for game publishers? The game was already sold new once. The effect will be that people will not buy those sucky games, which are like 90% of those games that are played once and never again.

what they fail to realize is that the 2nd hand and rental market has a huge effect on driving new game sales.

I swear I don't mean this to be a stupid question, even though it probably is, but how so? I've never really understood why used game sales, which seems to be a completely dying business given Gamestop's perpetual financial woes, and the lack of any other major similar chains (that I'm aware of).

I may just be blind to it, though. I hate used/rental physical media, and don't lend out my stuff, ever, to anyone. Microsoft could've announced that attempting to play a used game would send a million volts through the XBone controller and I would happily buy one without fear of the lightning bolt.

If it's just the philosophical distinction—don't tell me what to do with my stuff—that I can understand, but it seems people have more of a practical nit to pick with limiting used game sales. I had no idea it was such a big thing, I guess.

You have $30 to spend, you buy a used game because you can't afford a $60 game. I've bought used games before.

Now someone before me had to have bought it new, in the first place, to have sold it to GameStop. If that sale hadn't occurred then I wouldn't have been able to buy it, so my ability to buy it means the publisher made money.

The argument that my purchase of the game used is taking money away from the publisher is dumb because I could have just borrowed the game from someone and returned it afterwards (which, in the XB1 system, isn't possible!), but at least in my situation the original owner got something like $20 out of the process since they bought new and sold... and if they originally bought a new game it means they are likely to buy more new games.

Also, me buying used doesn't preclude me from buying new, and buying used 'keeps me in the habit', ie addicted. If I can't find anything but $60 games I will just have to find a new hobby I can afford, which means the gaming industry has just lost my future spending money.

Internet connection required to play single player game? Epic Fail. I have never purchased (or pirated) a game with this requirement. And never will. Baked into the system itself? Well Microsoft ensured I will remain a PC gamer for a long time.

Out of curiosity (legitimately), if you have a current console system - do you always leave it connected / online? Basically from a practicality standpoint will it make any difference? I'm certainly not deriding your decision to pass based on principal, totally cool. I just know for me that my system is just always connected by default and I don't really even think about it. I'm wondering if this is similar with 98% of people or if many actually have systems not connected frequently.

Yeah, I was wondering this too—my 360 is always connected to the internet, as are many other things in my house. I don't even second-guess the need to be online to do any one of a number of things anymore.

Someone in another response mentioned traveling with a console—I guess in something like a camper? That makes sense as a problem scenario for a box that needs to phone home as often as the XBone apparently does. But that's kind of an edge case, isn't it?